Talk:United States intervention in Chile

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dear VV[edit]

Dear VV, you insist in factual errors, the US gove was not only interested in to influence the politics of the government of Chile but in to change the government. Also if you think that the CIA stop to promote the coup, please state your source, because this is against the formal instruction to the CIA.

Please don't work to make an encyclopedia a laughing stock Milton 09:20, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

"Influence the politics" is more general - it includes mild operations like campaigning for a candidate as well as larger-scale ones such as changing the government. Both efforts were undertaken, and this is clearly explained in the article, so there is no doubt as to what is being referred to. The instruction to the CIA is not only linked to but quoted in the article (which seems redundant, a separate issue), so there is no need to reiterate it. The source for the breaking off is [1], which reads
Under “Track II” of the strategy, CIA sought to instigate a coup to prevent Allende from taking office after he won a plurality in the 4 September election and before, as Constitutionally required because he did not win an absolute majority, the Chilean Congress reaffirmed his victory. CIA was working with three different groups of plotters. All three groups made it clear that any coup would require the kidnapping of Army Commander Rene Schneider, who felt deeply that the Constitution required that the Army allow Allende to assume power. CIA agreed with that assessment. Although CIA provided weapons to one of the groups, we have found no information that the plotters’ or CIA’s intention was for the general to be killed. Contact with one group of plotters was dropped early on because of its extremist tendencies. CIA provided tear gas, submachine-guns and ammunition to the second group. The third group attempted to kidnap Schneider, mortally wounding him in the attack. CIA had previously encouraged this group to launch a coup but withdrew support four days before the attack because, in CIA’s assessment, the group could not carry it out successfully.
There is no evidence that any further coup efforts were pursued after 1970. Also, I noticed you claimed that the group that kidnapped Schneider was given arms by the CIA, but I don't see evidence for that as yet. Perhaps that claim should be dropped. Anyway, if you find the CIA denial not credible, it could be qualified. -- VV 09:33, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry VV. but in history exists what is called "primary documents" (like the documents released by the Chile declassification program, and secondary documents, that make comments to them. this is the category of your source, that start to said that is the definitive history do the Chilean participation, but in any case, bearing this in mind, your source said :

"""" After the coup in September 1973, CIA suspended new covert action funding

See funding was finished after the Pinochet coup (in 1973), not as you said, after that kidnapping fiasco.

""""""""After Allende’s election and before his inauguration, the CIA, under 40 Committee direction, made an effort—in coordination with the Embassy in Santiago—to encourage Chilean businesses to carry out a program of economic disruption.

This is not exactly information gathering !!! What is not said int his short report that this economics disruption includes financial support for a mayor truck-owners strike, that create havoc in the economy for lack of transportation. And move ones step further to make a coup possible,as was ordened by nixon "Make the economy scream" instruction. But, as can see in the previus extract, covert accion funding was suspended only after the 1973 coup !

"""""" In November 1970 a member of the Viaux group who avoided capture recontacted the Agency and requested financial assistance on behalf of the group. Although the Agency had no obligation to the group because it acted on its own, in an effort to keep the prior contact secret, maintain the good will of the group, and for humanitarian reasons, $35,000 was passed.

Sorry but if you give money to some people that is running from the law your are called a accomplice !!! I never said that CIA given money or guns to any specific group that was working in this terrorist act!!

As you can see, interesting information from an agency report that was busy trying to hide his hand !

Milton 09:28, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your first example was after the coup; the second was in 1970, which was not during the information gathering period. If you want to add details about the sanctions and related efforts, you should find, document, and add them. Stop reverting a good basis for an article with the incoherent and inaccurate mess that was there before. And yes you did claim the CIA gave money and guns to the group that killed Schneider. -- VV 10:18, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dear """" After the coup in September 1973, CIA suspended new covert action funding

It means that until 73 the cia was financing covert accion ........please stop reverting an article to replace it with pov Milton 11:50, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Revert to version agreeded in talk page of state terrorism. Of course it can be developed further, but it is against ettiquette to do a full replace by a new text. Milton 11:50, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

I rewrote a directionless, opinionated, unbalanced, nonsensical screed into an article. To revert my work for no reason at all is a blatant violation of Wiki etiquette and I will not stand for it. Stop trying to destroy this page. -- VV 22:39, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks more that you replace a page not that you rewrote. As a said, Of course that the page need to be open to developments, but To revert for no reason at all is a blatant violation of Wiki etiquette and I will not stand for it. Stop trying to destroy this page Milton 13:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I sugegst a Compromise, make a single change and we will discuss and make progress, to move on to make the next change and so on. Milton 13:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Other's pages suggest the following approach:

  • Make small changes, a bit at a time, taking care to make sure that they are verifiable and expressed dispasionatley.
  • Tone down your language, take out as much emotive stuff as you can, and let the facts speak for themselves. Milton 15:21, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have done that, namely taken out your emotive stuff and changed this into an article format. You have still not given me any problem with the version. Small changes are what's not needed when what existed before was not an encylopedia article but some random opinions and quotes mushed together. -- VV 21:44, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See VV? your posibilities of compromise are not the best in the area!!!!Milton

I will disect the original article to promote conversation and development

The U.S. Intervention in Chile (It is recomended to star the article with the article name)

was a policy that sought the overthrow the democratically elected Chilean president Salvador Allende

(What was about the article, a factual statment, the recomendation is to let the facts speak by itself. !!)

promoting and supporting a series of activities some oriented to terrorize the population.

(another factual statment, it needs backup, this is why the next quote was introduced )

The formal instruction to the CIA base in Chile was “It is a firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrow by a coup. It will be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 of October, but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure towards this end, utilizing every appropriated resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that USG and American hand be well hidden…”

(More facts)

The first documented action in this regard was the kidnapping of René Schneider,

(it is the firts documented action afther the formal instruction... a new fact)

the army commander (because he was a constitutionalist, i.e. he would not support a coup)

(A not disputed fact)

. The CIA in Santiago kept contact with two groups inside the military and provided guns and money for this action.

(maybe it is wrong, I remember that VV said that was three groups, also the paragrap dont said to what group was the support, needs further work)

One group succeeded in a an action that resulted in the killing of the Army commander on the spot. (A fact, again)

The result was just the opposite that his promoters expected, instead of terrorizing the population, the citizens and the military rallied behind the just elected Allende.

(more fact)

Failing this action, President Richard Nixon gave orders to Richard Helms, at this time the CIA Director, to implement economics sanctions that resulted in extended suffering to the general population.

(more facts, suported by the refenreces)

Some people think that the resulting instability created the conditions for the successful military coup against Allende, in 1973. (An opinion, it needs to be balanced with the opinions that some sustain that the resulting inestability was not a significant factor in making the coup possible)

Where is the emotive stuff, not suported by the facts ??? I don't see it, please help me

Milton 09:44, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The problems are legion. First, the format. It is not written like an article but a lumpy screed. I factored it into sections and paragraphs to provide a neat presentation of the material. Second, the information. Schneider's kidnapping was not to "terroriz[e] the population" but to remove an obstacle to overthrow. Nor does the CIA quote say anything about terrorizing the population, so it does not back it up. My version clearly describes the sanctions and effects without using such such emotive terms. My version is so obviously better as to make your constant reversion ridiculous. -- VV 10:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VV there is no My version or Your version in Wikipedia !! Good that you found a error. Your mention that in the case of Schneider's kidnapping was not to "terrorize the population= Why do not just correct it ____????????? Because there is not such claimin the article !!!!!!! Milton 13:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) And the "Formatting" losse a lot of key elements !!!

Why do not work from the original version one step at a time ? Milton 13:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I read a quote from Kissinger that ordered the Viaux plot "turned off" on October 15th. The bungled kidnapping happened on October 22nd.

I think that should be mentioned somewhere in the article, along with other information about whether or not the CIA continued to have close contacts with these guys that were involved, and whether or not the weapons they used were provided by the CIA. Supreme Moolah of Iran 07:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Articles about Allende/Pinochet regime change in Chile[edit]

The killing of the Chief Commander of the Army I agree that the intention was kidnapping the chief commander, and I modify my suggestion to reflect it, But the fact is that is was killed on the spot, and the people rallied behind the Marxist Allende for his killing, the intention of Kidnapping appears months later, when the team was captured. In practical terms, the important national political impact was for his killing, because at this time nobody was aware that the intention was to kidnap it.

Also I suggest that the title needs to reflect that the action was Against the chief commander of the army, this is the important point, The fact that is name was Schneider is to be mentioned in the paragraph. The Chilean army have a lots of commanders, and if we reefer to Schneider only as a Commander we risk to give the erroneous perception that he was in a low key position. ~~

US dumping strategic copper reserves on market?[edit]

Why does this article make no mention of the US' dumping strategic copper reserves on the market, leading to the rapid price declines that crippled Chile's economy. This is backed up by documents released during the clinton administration under the FOIA. Combined with the instant cut-off of foreign aid, is it any wonder that the Chilean economy collapsed? Blaming this all on Allende in this article, and the article about Allende, seems at best absent minded. --jacobolus (t) 10:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Certainly this belongs; because of all of the controversy surrounding this area, I suggest citing you sources with more than the usual care. Do you want to write it, or are you just asking someone else to? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:39, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Chamber of Deputies of Chile[edit]

I removed:

"The Chamber of Deputies of Chile's Resolution of August 22, 1973 sanctioned Allende's military removal by passage (81 to 47 votes) of its "Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy", and weeks later on September 11, 1973, Chile's armed forces led by Chief Commander Augusto Pinochet, ousted Allende from power. (Pinochet subsequently refrained from relenquishing martial law, and Chile became a military junta under him at that point.)

Because I Think that the Chilean Chamber of deputies political resolution was a sovereign act by such chamber, and NOT a part of the US Intervention in Chile —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye (talkcontribs)

It gives it historical context, I am going to add it back.Travb 16:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please do not delete links to articles nor description of articles in the "see also" section.

Project FUBELT - secret CIA operations documents: US government spent millions of dollars to unseat Allende. Explains to the user what the program is. This is factually correct, as are the other comments.

Salvador Allende was deposed by 1973 coup and Augusto Pinochet - took power in the same 1973 coup.

Signed:Travb 10:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Chamber of Deputies of Chile Resolution of August 22, 1973 sanctioned Allende's military removal by passage (81 to 47 votes) of its "Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy", and weeks later on September 11, 1973, Chile's armed forces led by Chief Commander Augusto Pinochet, ousted Allende from power. (Pinochet subsequently refrained from relenquishing martial law, and Chile became a military junta under him at that point.)


The Chamber of Deputies of Chile condemned Allende by passage of the Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy. Less than a month later on September 11, 1973, Chief Commander Augusto Pinochet, ousted Allende from power.

The Chamber of Deputies of Chile Resolution of August 22, 1973 did not "sanction Allende's military removal". Please quote from the document. Please do not add unverifiable historical interpretations of the event. Please verify all of your edits. The best edits are ones which quote the document verbatium. Travb 03:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found the quote:

First: To present the President of the Republic, Ministers of State, and members of the Armed and Police Forces with the grave breakdown of the legal and constitutional order of the Republic, the facts and circumstances of which are detailed in sections 5 to 12 above;

Second: To likewise point out that by virtue of their responsibilities, their pledge of allegiance to the Constitution and to the laws they have served, and in the case of the ministers, by virtue of the nature of the institutions of which they are high-ranking officials and of Him whose name they invoked upon taking office, it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the constitutional order of our Nation and the essential underpinnings of democratic coexistence among Chileans;

I was wrong, I will edit the page quoting this text.Travb 03:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chamber of Deputies and Allende[edit]

The paragraph that begins "The Chamber of Deputies of Chile condemned Allende…": as far as I know, the resolution, while receiving the vote of the majority of the Chamber, fell short of the two-thirds that would have given it legal force. If I'm correct, the article should say this if it discusses the resolution at all. If I'm wrong, would someone please show me a citation to the contrary? This is an area in which I am moderately well-read, but not expert. - Jmabel | Talk 04:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, good point, I am not even well read on the subject, maybe you can add an {{expert}} to the page.Travb 04:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that this still hasn't been addressed. We have a half-assed and potentially misleading passage in the lead, and it isn't particularly on-topic (that is, it has no specific relation to United States intervention in Chile). We have s somewhat better handling of this at Salvador Allende ("the Chamber of Deputies (with the Christian Democrats now firmly uniting with the National Party) accused Allende's government of unconstitutional acts and called on the military ministers to assure the constitutional order") and a pretty decent, lengthy discussion of the resolution and Allende's response at [Chilean coup of 1973]; remarkably, the latter is not even linked from the lead as it stands.

I'll give at least seven more days for someone else to rewrite this more evenhandedly, but if it is not sorted out by then, I will simply remove the matter of the Chamber's resolution from the lead, on the basis that it is somewhat off-topic. - Jmabel | Talk 00:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it may be worth the difference is that a resolution, being a public declaration without major legal consecuences, could be passed by simple majority, while the impeachment of a president needed a two thirds vote to be passed. The opposition had 55% of the vote in Congress, hence could pass any resolution or block any law, but did not have 2/3s, hence could not impeach Allende. Mel Romero 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


No mention of ITT? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 31 May 2006.

Appalling Vandalism[edit]

Please cease this appalling vandalism which includes:

  1. The misuse of a source which implies a 1964 coup when it speaks of 1970.
  2. The introduction of innaccurate information.
  3. The presence of information totally unrelated to U.S. involvement.

CJK 01:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't call this edit, which includes removal of Wikisource and others, for a "revert of vandalism". Maybe then we can talk about the deletion of the source, but if you mix up justified edits with deletion of massive portions of text, no wonder someone decides to reverts you. Tazmaniacs 01:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The wikisource is about a resolution which has absolutely nothing to do with U.S. intervention in Chile. The resolution was an all-Chilean affair. CJK 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source you are questioning is titled [ Chile and the United States:

Declassified Documents Relating to the Military Coup, September 11, 1973]. Tazmaniacs 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding that source, it is misleading as it implies that the coup stuff was done in 1964 while the link addresses 1970. CJK 01:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see in what it is misleading. Tazmaniacs 01:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Marxist presidential candidate Salvador Allende was a top contender in the 1964 election, and the US, through the CIA, spent millions campaigning against him, mostly through radio and print advertising. Covert operations were also ordered to promote a military coup and undermine Allende's government[1].

The covert operations to promote a coup cited in the link were in 1970, not 1964 which is implied by "also". CJK 01:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But why delete the source? See Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes#Deleting... Tazmaniacs 16:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the article i cited [2], pages 246-254. There are conflicting statements whether the coup plan in 1970 was aborted or not. Kissinger said he turned it off. CIA officials said the coup wasn't turned off. I think the correct address of your source should be [3] or [4]. Those documents are available from the site you linked and partly on page 251 in the article i cited. See also Project FUBELT. Vints 19:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is really noteworthy is that there's never been any claim that the US was behind the Chamber of Deputies decision to ask the military to kick Allende out, leaving one with the reasonable conclusion that his ouster was a "given" in hindsight regardless of whatever fantasies of feasible orchestration the Nixon administration may or may not have indulged.--Mike18xx 23:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bertilvidet and Tazmaniacs, what part of your source says that Kissinger in fact turned the 1970 coup off? I couldn't find anything. The article I cited [5], Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders, says on page 246-254 that "the testimony given to the Committee by Henry Kissinger and General Haig conflicts with that given by CIA officials." Kissinger and Haig said the coup was turned off October 15. CIA officials said that "they operated before and after October 15 with knowledge and approval of the White House." In addition, CIA delivered weapons to a group of kidnap plotters October 22. Vints 06:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The memory hole[edit]

The following has been deleted from this page in the past couple of months:

Once Allende was in office, the US, led by Nixon, who stated his fear that Chile could become "another Cuba", initiated plans to work with insurgent elements within Chile to overthrow Allende in a coup.

The US began implementing economic sanctions against Chile to encourage Allende's resignation, his overthrow, or his defeat in the impending election of 1976.

The Chamber of Deputies of Chile condemned Allende by passage of the Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy, the declaration stated that "it is (the Armed and Police Forces) duty to put an immediate end to all situations...that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law." Less than a month later on September 11, 1973, Chief Commander Augusto Pinochet, ousted Allende from power.

  • Chamber of Deputies of Chile's Resolution of August 22, 1973 "Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy"; de-facto impeachment resolution, approved 81 to 47 votes, imploring the military forces of the nation to remove President Allende for myriad violations (enumerated within the resolution): " is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land..." ( (In English, German, Spanish, French, Polish)
  • Alternate source of the Resolution of August 22, 1973 (In English, German, Spanish, French, Polish)
  • "Never Again: An essay about the breakdown of democracy in Chile" by José Piñera (examination of events leading up to, and implications regarding, the Resolution of August 22, 1973. (In English, Italian, Spanish) Mirror site

Signed: Travb (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, put 'em back in! (The Declaration has a newer wikisource link, btw; and I believe it's already referenced.)--Mike18xx 07:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV implicit in title[edit]

Based in part on some recent discussion at Talk:Chilean coup of 1973#Protection: I believe that the title of this article more-or-less forces a one-sided article. I would suggest moving to one of the following:

I'd be quite open to other suggestions, but "intervention" suggests that the article will only deal with what at least borders on illicit, and will not contextualize it. - Jmabel | Talk 00:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The second one is much more preferable, IMO, since it will enable a historically open-ended article.--Mike18xx 04:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What exactly do you mean, Jmabel? I don't see how "intervention" necessarily means something "illicit," and greater context can always be found in other articles. There are many pages in Wikipedia exclusively devoted to the real or alleged crimes or human rights abuses of various groups that actually do, with their title and subject, suggest that the articles "deal with what at least borders on illicit," and I've never seen those articles summarily eliminated from existence because of that.

As in every Wikipedia article, illicit actions of an actor can be contextualized with writing in the article. If you feel the US intervention in Chile has been unfairly contextualized you, as you know, are free to add material to the article to contextualize it. --MarkB2 19:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right now, we don't have a broader article on U.S.-Chile relations. The current title encourages a focus on about 15 years in the middle of the Cold War, because that was when the U.S. was most blatantly intervening in Chile. I cannot see how we can possibly get a better, more encyclopedic article out of this. I'm not ready to have a fight over this, but I think it is silly not to have a title that will encourage a broader, more informative article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a broader article on U.S.-Chile relations, but the precedent in Wikipedia seems to be to have to broader articles, were possible, but also to have articles that focus on individual interventions. See British-Spanish Relations and the more focused articles that are linked to on that page, for one example. I think there's already enough information present on the very controversial U.S. intervention in Chile to justify it having its own article. --MarkB2 20:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am also surprised at Jmabel's proposal. Nothing impede the creation of United States-Chilean Foreign Relations as already exist many such articles (see a list at Foreign Relations of the United States), but it is clear that US intervention, legal or not, has enough historical content to make an article. I don't see why we should add to this article a section on, say, free-trade agreements between the US and Chile? Tazmaniacs 05:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would have to agree with the previous statement, since US-Chilean Relations seems to have a more passive connotation. It seems that the title should be used solely for a section or topic which involves past or current economic relations between Chile and the US or similar topics. There is enough information to make this a separate article and there both sides of the argument available. At present there is a consensus about the US intervention in Chile from both sides. This not only includes the recently declassified CIA documents, but a near admission of guilt from the previous Secretary of State Colin Powell who stated that "[the Chilean coup] is not a part of American history we are proud of". for more info see: "The Pinochet File" by Peter Kornbluh or simply google CIA declassified documents on the topic or "Operation Condor." since these documents are now fully available to the general public. So there should be no question that US intervention in Chile is a two-sided statement. Caespinoza 01:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)CespinozaReply[reply]

Strange sentence[edit]

Maybe someone could better explain the strange sounding "Chile, more than any of its South American neighbors, had an extensive democratic tradition dating back to the early 1930s, and even before. Because of this, it is difficult to gauge how successful CIA tactics were in swaying voters." I have a hard time understanding the "Because". Does this mean that the US try to pay voters to change vote, and that because of democratic tradition, this would be difficult? But, apart of asking if you really think that so many million dollars were there only to "buy votes" (to whom? workers?) and not for other propaganda operations, how do you know it was employed this way? I find it very strange, and it almost seems to me a paradoxical defense of US intervention, in the style: "yes, we did spend money, but it was no use anyway". I hope for some clear reason (which should be included in the article itself, not only debated here). Cheers! Tazmaniacs 05:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Although this article is generally good, it's permeated by sentences like this: "Regarding Pinochet's rise to power, the CIA undertook a comprehensive analysis of its records and individual memoirs as well as conducting interviews with former agents, and concluded in a report issued in 2000 that the CIA "did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency." [3]

Oh, well, that makes me feel better. The CIA investigated itself and concluded it did nothing wrong. Whew!

Does anyone have some reputable independent sources? MarkB2 07:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mentioned in a previous edit, that there is a relatively good source available called "The Pinochet File" by Peter Kornbluh. It is an extensive look at the US involvement in the Chilean Coup. It uses primarily the declassified CIA documents which are available to anyone. Since these documents come directly from the perpetrators there is no reason to believe that it is propaganda from "the other side" of the argument. The CIA documents themselves are available to anyone on-line. I also heard that the book is now available for free in the form of an ebook, but I haven't looked for it myself (since I bought a copy a few years before). I am not sure if it supports all the claims purported by some, but it definitely substantiates many of the more heinous actions.Caespinoza 02:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)CaespinozaReply[reply]

one sided[edit]

Will an article be created on the KGB as well? Maybe it is better to start an article foreign intervention in Chile? Intangible2.0 00:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a fabulous idea. We should get TDC and some others to contribute. MarkB2 Chat 06:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:PinochetKissinger.jpg[edit]

Image:PinochetKissinger.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Holy Toledo, this article is WAY too biased[edit]

I think we should really state that there is a difference between the US trying to influence elections and comandeering a Chilean coup. Writers of the time, especially four Marxist writers that I will soon post all indicate that the Coup itseld was PURELY Chilean and mastered only by Pinochet and his inner circle. The only thing you can even blame the US was influencing elections which later influenced the turn of events that LED to the Coup. Remember that Cuba and the Soviet Union were likewise funneling money into Chile and into Allende's campaign. After the US cut off aid, Sweden and other nations INCREASED their aid to Chile. There is no mention of Allende's dismantling of the Constitution. His unconstitutinal confiscation of Chilean farms, the opposition marches to Allende (March of Pots), etc. The Church Commission Report is barely a blip on here. It seems that it doesnt fit into the bias of this article. SHAM of an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, you're forgetting to mention that it was the CIA along with the business community that made the economy scream. Allende was taken to task in an obvious example of class warfare. The CIA and the business elites orchestrated a "scorched earth" policy that pitted Allende's policy against business interest in Chile. The Church Committee, if you even bothered to read it, goes into detail how they colluded to make this happen. You're wrong! The Article is too bias to let he CIA off the hook. How come you people never start off with the premise that a foreign nation is manipulating the economic and political affairs of another nation? If you guys cared about democracy at all, you wouldn't have tried to instigate a coup against a democratically elected leader. Hypocrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Money to the armed forces?[edit]

"The collection of 1,100 documents dealt with the years leading up to the military coup. One of these documents establishes that U.S. military aid to the Chilean armed forces was raised dramatically between the coming to power of Allende in 1970, when it amounted to US$800,000 annually, to US$10.9 million in 1972."

I dont undertand this statement, was this money delivered to Allende`s goverment or directly to the military commanders? Was it just money or military hardware? Is there any source about what happened with that money? Agrofelipe (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DHeyward deletions[edit]

You deleted a lot of information and re-introduced an inaccuracy, which is unsourced. You also put in your unsourced POV, which is not allowed. You denied it last time but its apparent that you are wikistalking: following me to articles and reverting my edits. I suggest you stop.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did no such thing. --DHeyward (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you did. You blanked a whole section and added in a statement that "there is no evidence" of US assistance to the coup against Allende. That may be your POV, but you it's unsourced. You didn't even bother to show common curtesy to discuss any of this before making massive changes, even after you were reverted. You also didn't show up here until after I made a minor edit. Do you also deny this?Giovanni33 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since you have not shown a willingness to edit collaboratively, I've asked for a neutral editor via the 3rd editor option to assist.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A third opinion has been given here:[6] I hope you will abide by consensus on this.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just for reference a WP:Third opinion cannot, by itself, be construed as providing consensus. -Rushyo (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit War[edit]

To avoid future edit warring here some reasons why this edit is not acceptable to me.

"The U.S. government had two approaches to fighting Marxism as represented by Allende."

Strong POV language and not backed by source. It is argued or suggested by many historians and journalists that anticommunism wasn't the only motive for U.S. intervention.

"The NARA (National Archives Records Administration) found documents in Nixon's papers showing that the CIA had instigated the operation [1]."

The sentence above is backed by a reputable and reliable source. I see no justified reason for its deletion.

the deletion of the section "state terrorism"

This section is controversial but a complete deletion is not acceptable. Frederick H. Gareau and Thomas Wright are notable scholars and the section is sufficiently sourced. If there is an issue with NPOV minor changes in the section should do the job after being discussed on the talk page.Neptun88 (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At a minimum the length of the quotes being included is a copyright violation, way beyond what fair use allows; I have trimmed them back to a reasonable length.- Merzbow (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Giovanni! Jtrainor (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is obviously not the appropriate forum for such accusations. If you have any actual evidence take it to the arbcom for enforcement. If you lack such proof, then please strike your above comment. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What, you mean like this [[7]] evidence? Jtrainor (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is indeed an appropriate forum, and considering,
Neptun88 appears Red X Unrelated... :Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I repeat my suggestion that you strike your accusation. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neptun88 is rather obviously G33. I shall be retracting nothing. Jtrainor (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I knew that this is a controversial subject but I would have never imagined that I would be welcomed with so many allegations after just - what was it? - 9 edits as a registered user. Still, I have not given up hope for a constructive discussion yet.--Neptun88 (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spare us the platitudes, G33. We all know it's you. Jtrainor (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Strong POV language and not backed by source. It is argued or suggested by many historians and journalists that anticommunism wasn't the only motive for U.S. intervention."

Anti-communism and opposition to the spread of Soviet Socialism and Marxism were the main motives for the US support to pro-democracy groups that opposed Allende`s socialist regime in Chile, all other motives generated from it.

Besides what are these historians and journalists you talk about?Agrofelipe (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it has been suggested that the article be merged ?????[edit]

At the start of the article said that has been suggested that this article needs to be merger with CIA intervention….

First I don’t see such suggestion in this page…. Where is such suggestion being made???

Also I think that is wrong, because CIA intervention is only a part of the intervention…. Not the full thing. The actual title presents this broader perspective.

Milton (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been suggested that CIA activities in Chile be merged into THIS article, not the other way around.
Likeminas (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How does this work"?[edit]

"Track I" was a State Department initiative designed to thwart Allende by subverting Chilean elected officials within the bounds of the Chilean constitution and excluded the CIA."

How does that work? How does a foreign nation subvert an elected official from another nation within the bounds of that nation's Constitution? You gotta love the language the CIA uses to cover their own behinds. They subverted the democratic process every step of the way in Chile and somehow we're supposed to take the Agency's word that they're "securing democracy worldwide"? Laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is way more that can be said than whats in this article[edit]

This article doesn't even begin to scratch the surface on how the CIA made plans with the business community in Chile to make the economy scream. Th Church Committee report alone has tons of info on this subject. Also, how the CIA manipulated the media, staged phony strikes, etc. And this is just what the CIA has admitted to. C'mon people the CIA did way more than whats written in this article. They made that country ripe for a Coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1973 Coup[edit]

I have substantially re-written the section about the 1973 coup. I believe that the section was misleading in parts and in others factually incorrect, after checking the footnotes attached to the article.

Many of the footnotes cited declassified documents as evidence that the CIA or other parts of the US government brought about the 1973 coup. However, these actually pertain to the 1970 botched coup attempt.

I also removed the section "Nonetheless, this is contradicted by the declassified documents involving the CIA, in which covert operatives were inserted in Chile, in order to prevent a Marxist government from arising and subsequent propagandist operations which were designed to push Chilean president Eduardo Frei to support "a military coup which would prevent Allende from taking office on 3 November."[1][2]" because this pertains entirely to the 1970 botched coup attempt, which is detailed in the main article in the section 'Allende Presidency: Track II'. If valid, it should be re-inserted in that section, and not the one about the 1973 coup.

I also deleted a series of quotes because I thought they were trivial and added nothing to the section. Most of them related to the botched 1970 coup.

I have also included new sources, including another of Henry Kissinger's transcripted phone calls and a national security decision memorandum. Hopefully people will appreciate the changes, but please before simply reverting them, discuss them here! --yoctobarryc 02:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarifying that Prominent Authors Claim Significant US Involvement in the Period Leading up to the 1973 Coup[edit]

The version of text I am modifying, says:

However, it was without doubt a major vindication for the Republican administration. Conrad Black, in his work "Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full", notes:

   After more than thirty years, no evidence has come to light in either country that the United States played a direct role in the overthrow of the Allende government, but it was certainly a geopolitical bonanza for the United States, as Allende was cavorting with Castro with a particularly irritating relish.[28]


   There is no evidence that the U.S. instigated or provided material support to Pinochet's successful coup in 1973, but the Nixon administration was undoubtedly pleased with the outcome; Nixon had spoken with disappointment about the failed coup earlier that year.

However, Kornbluh, Weiner, and Hitchens all argue the opposite and that controversy was not fairly presented here. The changes I am making present the controversy. Notice that I do not remove what Conrad Black says, although I believe he is incorrect. Regardless, we are supposed to report the controversies and not argue them amongst ourselves.

The changes I make have only added balance by showing the other authors' arguments. I removed the claim "There is no evidence..." as there is plenty of evidence that the US played a key role. A more fair claim would be that it is controversial. Currently this section is already heavily weighted to implying the US took a far more passive role than it did. What I add serves to balance this section out more towards NPOV.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently some believe that if you destabilize a country, helping/paying opponents, assuring them of your future support, producing propaganda, economic warfare, etc., but just happen to not do anything on the day of a coup, then you have nothing to do with it. Pretty strange point of view. Aesma (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misrepresentation of Sources[edit]

User:TheTimesAreAChanging, I'm calling you out for willfully misrepresenting two sources here. You inserted "Joaquin Fermandois criticized Kornbluh's "black and white" and "North American centered conception of world affairs", noting that a variety of internal and external factors, including covert actions by Cuba and the Soviet Union (which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars[33]), also played a role and that a careful reading of the documentary record reveals the CIA was largely "impotent"" But nowhere in the two sources (yes, I read them) is a mention of action by Cuba and the USSR that contributed to the coup, and definitely not of the "hundreds of thousands of dollars" of "cost." JF says that Cuba and the Soviets supported the Marxists; he also says that the US and the CIA funneled money to the opposition, and that this could have been "decisive". Ergo he contradicts NOTHING that Winn says, and supports a much more nuanced view than you claim he "supports." Withdraw the source, or modify its wording. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JF does support a nuanced interpretation of events--in contrast to your blanket assertions that the CIA was behind everything--including "Cuban involvement in the preparation of an illegal armed contingent" and "Soviet aid to the Communist Party". Falcoff pg. 205 mentions over $350,000 spent by Cuba alone. The argument that this context is misleading because the Cubans/Soviets supported the other side is not persuasive, at least insofar as my text hardly suggested otherwise. Winn was not mentioned in my proposed text. Your edit summary set up a strawman by demanding a source proclaiming the CIA pristinely innocent of any involvement in Chile whatever. I don't need to provide one. JF sharply criticized Kornbluh, and the criticism should stay.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't fudge. Your text tried to claim the following:
a) That JF supported, in an unqualified fashion, the view that there was "no evidence" that the CIA had anything to do with the coup. He DOES NOT do this. He clearly states that any view that there was no US involvement was preposterous. He contradicts Kornbluh; which does not mean he supports the CIA rendition. Since you refused to correct that, I did.
b) That JF stated that Cuban and Soviet covert intervention was responsible for the coup. He does NOT say that. He mentions intervention, is all. The monetary figure comes from Falcoff, and JF does not invoke Falcoff on that point, so you cannot present their arguments in synthesized form.
c) That JF is a source on par with any other journal article. He is not; it is a book review, which carries weight because of the publication it is in, but not the same as an academic paper, so don't try to hide that. The "Books under review" bit is IN THE ORIGINAL TITLE.
Finally, if the CIA view is to be explained in detail in the intro, so must the opposing one. Likewise in the final paragraph. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers, sparring partner. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States intervention in Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States intervention in Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Important Reference Missing[edit]

The section has this sentence:

A subsequent September 2000 report from the CIA, using declassified documents related to the military coup, found that the CIA "probably appeared to condone" the 1973 coup, but that there was "no evidence" that the US actually participated in it.

The source on this claim is missing but is vital to this section of the article. If somebody has a source somewhere that says this you should replace this dead one that exists. Otherwise it looks like whoever put this here was just bullshitting.

Thanks, ― TaltosKieronTalk 21:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expand the lede[edit]

No way the lede should be this short and this vague for an article this long. natemup (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]